The High Court · 2025

,.Petitioner/Plaintiff Deepak Kumar, S/o- Late Ramesh prasad, Aged about 4g years, Occ: Nil, M]-"lNg 81..Road No 7 eanlara nifs-iy;e%[#""' um prakash, S/o_ Late Ganesh prasad, ngLd about 69 years, Occ. Nil, R/o_ H No 5-9-30/6 Basheerbagh, HyOeraOaj' Kotr Reddy, S/o- Kota Reddy,...:AS9d about 59 years, Occ: Nil, R/o- Flat No.1166, Road No.56, Jubtiee Hilts: HyOeraOaO. - '-*'-' ...RespondenUplaintiff lA NO: 1 oF 2025 _of _the Petitron under Section,1.51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support petition. inJiiJn iiorn ,.nry be pteased to stav all further proceedinos in o s No.47 ot zoni o"n'tiJiir" of vr Addr District & :'$::T'"i if"' : r""U si7 H"":!l*,llt*"i ;.i v ilil',," t x,x, ip"i r v p".i r "i Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. p. Vishu Vardhan Reddr r,ai. x""r'v.v.3 ilifi,H";'' counsel representins " Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. Challa Apoorva Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER .,/ ---7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM-KoSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2468 at 2025 ORDER The instarrt Civil Revision Petition has been f led by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challen!ing the docket order dated 28.02.2025, in I.A.No.1B17 of 2024 in rl ,S.No.157 of 20L4 (renumbered as O.S.No.47 of 202L), passed by the',t1 Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (for short, 'the impugned order'). 2, Heard Mr. P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned ccunsel representing Mr. Karra V.V.S,N.Murthy, learned counsel for the l)etitioner; and Ms. Challa Apoorva tleddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Vide the irnpugned order; the Trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.1B17 of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of lrvil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to reopen the petit oner's evidence for further marking cf certain documents.

4. The brief l'acts of the case, are that, the petil irner filed a suit for perpetual injunr:tion against the respondents. Thr: contention of the petitioner was ':hat the respondents are trying to interfere with the construction wo -ks initiated by the petitioner. Thr: Trial Court initially granted an order of status quo on 04.03,20L4 and it is still in operation. The petitioner got himself examined as pw. 1 and closed his evidence and thereafter the matter was posted for evidence of the respondents. The evidence oF the respondents also closed and the matter was coming up for final arguments. It is during this time that the present I.A.No.1g17 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner seeking reopening of his evidence for marking certain documents.

5. The said I.A. was fired on 25.09.2024. The petitioner intended to mark three documents, viz.,

1. certified copy of Encumbrance certficate

2. certified topy of GPA doc No. 7969/2013

3. Electricity bills. It is this application which stood dismissed by the Triar court reading to the filing of instant Civil Revision petition

6. Learned counser appearing for the petitioner contended that it is a petitioner / plaintiff's suit for perpeiuar injunction and the pleadings are almost complete and it at this juncture that the petitioner courd ray hand on the three documents which the petitioner intends to mark and inadvertently it courd not be marked during the course oF triar. He submits that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the interest of the respondents. Moreover, it may only strengthen the case of the petitioner I I - before the Trial court and therefore the Triar court ought not to have dismissed the sa id I.A.

7. Learned ccunser appearing for the petitioner further contended that the delay on thr: part of the petitioner in bringing [hose documents on record was on account of the petitioner laying hands c n documents in the recent past and that the petitioner was not having thr:,ie documents in his possession / custody, or else, the petitioner would ha I riled it earlier itself and had got it marked during the course of trial.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitione- relying upon the following decisio.s contended that the supreme Cc urt had permitted reopening of the ,:vidence so as to mark the documen:r. which the plaintiff intended to bring on record and mark the same. a) K.K. Velusamy vs. N, palanisamyl b) Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr.2 c) Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. vs. p. Rajlrumarrep by his Power Agent Imam Oli3 '120111 ll Supreme Court :ases 275 - Civil Appeal No 4096 ot 2(22, decided on t-t.O5 2022 arising ou t of 5LP {C) No.1452 of 2022 ' Civil nppeal No.3427 of 2C2O, decided on 13.10.2020 arlsing out of 5LP (C) No.16491of 2020 ; l Page 4 of f

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the present I.A. has been filed only with a mala fide intention of protracting the proceedings before the Trial Court and in the process the petitioner can continue to enjoy the order of status quo that was granted way back in the year 2014. 1O. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.3, the suit has been filed way back in the year 2Ot4 and since then the petitioner is enjoying an order of status quo which by itself speaks volumes. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.3, mata fide intention also stands established from the fact that one of the documents which the petitioner intends to get marked i.e. certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate has already been marked in the course of trial as Ex.A5. Therefore, there is no reason for again marking a document which already stands marked.

11. Likewise, it was also the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the certified copy of GpA document No.7969 of 2013 again is a document which is of 2013 and the petitioner has not given any plausible explanation as to why the same could not be brought on record ea rlier. L2. Further contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 was that so Far as the electricity bill is concerned, that again is a document of -/f I the year 2022 and the name in which the electricitl, bill exists is that of one Ms. M.Savit.i which wourd show that the erectri(:i.y connection is not in the name of the petitioneI nor has he ever r.]entioned that the electricity connec tion was in the name of Ms. M. Savitr-i, and moreover; the said document b-.ing of the year 2022 the relevance of the document to mark in the instiint suit For grant of perpetuar injunction fired more than 10 years back is r.tot sustainable. 13' For ail the aforesaid reasons, the rearned cour ser for respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision petition. reflected exa m in ed L4. Having heard the contentions put forth on rl ther side and on perusal of record:;, particularly taking note of the fac.r;al matrix which is from the preceding paragraphs, firstly tirr. petitioner stood long ago and his evidence was closed. Subsequently, the respondents' evidence was permitted to be red and it r,r,as arso crosed. It is only in the course of arguments, there appears to be :;.me objection that must have been t.ken by the respondents so far as th3 standard of proof led by the petitioner that he must have fert of imp -r.,ving his case by brining certain adrjitionar documents or it courd be th l reason that the respondents are clntending that of the petitioner try rrq to protract the continue enjoying the order of stat,.ts quo that was proceedrngs and awarded in the year 2014

15. Admittedly, the first document which the petitioner wants to mark is analreadymarkeddocumentandtherefore,thisCourtdoesnotfindany good reason why the petitioner wants to get the same marked again' and the purpose for doing it for the second time' So far as marking of GPA documentoftheyear20l3isconcerned'thisCourtstillfindssufficient strength in the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No'3 in this regard. Perusal of the pleadings would go to show that the GPA was one which was in fact executed by the petitioner himself in favour of his wife and therefore he not being aware of the same or he having no copies of the same is also difficult to accept and seems to be an unjustified request'

16. Lastly, the prayer seeking marking of the electricity bill' again does notSeemtobeinanymannerdetrimentaltotheinterestofthepetitioner if it is not marked for the reason that the electricity bill shows the consumer's name as Smt. l.Savitri and not the name of petitioner' Likewise, the said document is also again of the year 2022' L7. Another reason why this Court is not impressed with the prayer soughtforbythepetitioneristhestageatwhichitisfiledi.e'attherag end of the trial, more particularly when the matter ls fixed for final arguments, rather after the final arguments had begun' f ( - PageT of7 ,

18. So far as the judgments relied upon by the lea.ned counsel for the petitioner is corlcerned, if we look at the factual rr;rtrix of each of the case, it would clive a clear indication that the facts; of the present case compared to those judgments are entirely different e,nd those judgments have been dt:cided under different factual :ackdrop, and are distinguishable and cannot be applied in a straight.iitcket manner to the facts o[ the pres:nt case.

19. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The irstant Civil Revision Petition thus fails;, and is accordingly, rejected.

20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs SD/.B.REKHA RANI ltjTlANT REGISTRAR slcrtoH oFFlcER r')ourt' Ranga Reddy /TTRUE COPY// To, Ka I The Vl Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family 3fj'S'JlJill'[']ll; u u. * Murthv. Advocate t-ojlYi: ;[ & il'J. cn,rr' Apoorva Reddv' Advocate IoPUC] Two CD CoPies St, 2 3. 4 m/l +v HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 ORDER CRP.No.2468 of 2025 l. I iltT ?:fl5 2 /r it,.l: \',.\l \f\v /r r \r REJECTING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION b \rl (i .l \c